Researcher: Evidence for early man in Asia half a million years earlier than thought

Hazel, cf 67 ff. Particularly note Orgel's 1973 remarks on quantifying information implicit in structures. One key point, in the midst of a reasoned case: "Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure." Complexity is then associated with long chain length. This boils down to strings of Y/N Q's in a hypothetical optimally efficient description language, thence islands of function isolated deeply in large config spaces. As can be seen starting with isolation in AA sequence space of protein superfamilies. All of this would not be controversial in the least if it were not coming up against ideological citadels in our culture. In that context, so long as designers are possible, evident design patterns such as have been identified by modern flint knapping, are credible ways to identify designs without explicit quantification. For the cell, the presence of algorithmic, digital code strings, thus purpose and language is decisive. The OP case is somewhat controversial only because the dating scheme does not fit the current conventional wisdom. KF kairosfocus

Any response to 65, JAD? hazel

F/N: Daily mail https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2091066/Modern-flint-expert-reverse-engineers-Neanderthal-stone-axes--says-ancestors-clever-elegant-engineers.html >>Researchers have thought that our ancestors might have intentionally sought out the flakes for their size and shape. But it was regarded as controversial, and recently researchers questioned whether Levallois tool production involved conscious, structured planning. Now, the experimental study – in which a modern-day flintknapper replicated hundreds of Levallois artifacts – supports the notion that Levallois flakes were indeed engineered. By combining experimental archaeology with morphometrics (the study of form) and statistical analysis, the Kent researchers have proved for the first time that flakes removed from 'prepared' cores were more standard than ones created by accident. Importantly, they also identified the specific properties of Levallois flakes that would have made them preferable to past mobile hunter-gathering peoples. Dr Lycett also explained that ‘amongst a variety of choices these tools are ‘superflakes’. They are not so thin that they are ineffective but they are not so thick that they could not be re-sharpened effectively or be unduly heavy to carry, which would have been important to hominins such as the Neanderthals’.>> kairosfocus

BO'H: simply watching flint knapping will show that it is a significantly skilled and hazardous process. I shudder when I see use of heavy stones to strike others in order to trigger crack-propagation, without protective eyewear. As in, flying razor-sharp, jagged-edge shards connected to almost explosive stress relief on crack propagation. Serious care and attention were obviously required. KF kairosfocus

Hazel, the existence and even quantifiability in principle of functionally specific complex information [comparable to AUTOCAD's reduction to coded description languages], or even the fact that such may enfold at least some cases of irreducible complexity does not mean that that is the most effective way to identify or recognise a case of design. In archaeology, pattern recognition by an expert familiar with a phenomenon has long been routinely used (without explicit quantification) to identify artifacts and their particular styles. There is a longstanding known pattern with pottery, handwriting in manuscripts is often dated based on styles, weapons and tools, housing, cities, roads, graves and many other similar cases are well known and should be familiar to any reader of the literature or watcher of something like the long running UK series, Time Team. Indeed, routinely, archaeologists contrast "archaeology" [= artifacts] vs "natural." Enough of this has been pointed out above that your circling back to the just above is clearly unwarranted. In the case of stone tools, flint knapping is a partly recovered art and it is understood how tools are made. One of the exceptions that comes to mind, IIRC, is that apparently Neanderthals had a different level of bodily strength and certain pressure techniques they used, we cannot do. KF PS: Let me note for record, Orgel, 1973, in perhaps the earliest discussion of functionally oriented complex specific information:

living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . . [HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure.

[--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant J S Wicken "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, -- here and -- here -- (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).]

One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions.  [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes [--> Orgel had high hopes for what Chem evo and body-plan evo could do by way of info generation beyond the FSCO/I threshold, 500 - 1,000 bits.] [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196.]

kairosfocus

hazel:

JAD, I am participating in this thread about detecting design in everyday events such as the possibly stone tools mentioned in the OP, and specifically whether mathematics can be used to quantify various factors into bits of some type of specialized information. The consensus in this thread seems to be that can’t be done.

And yet I told you how to do it.

This appears to confirm that it is not true that anyone in the discussion thinks that CSI is necessary for detecting design.

See the first comment in this thread ET

Can you explain that comment, JAD? The OP was about determining if some stones might be designed tools? I asked some questions, and it appears everyone agreed, including me, that mathematical methods involving some type of information, such as CSI, couldn't be applied to this situation. This appears to confirm that it is not true that anyone in the discussion thinks that CSI is necessary for detecting design. Can you describe where you think the goalposts were, and where you think I moved them? hazel

So you didn’t move the goal posts Hazel? john_a_designer

JAD, I am participating in this thread about detecting design in everyday events such as the possibly stone tools mentioned in the OP, and specifically whether mathematics can be used to quantify various factors into bits of some type of specialized information. The consensus in this thread seems to be that can't be done. I don't have the background, and for that and other reasons the interest, to discuss the DNA issues. Also, JAD, do you any response to 57 above, where I pointed out that it is not true, I don't think, that "our regular interlocutors " believe you can't detect design without using CSI. hazel

In the past, I have already made an explicit challenge (to those at TSZ, I believe) to offer any sequence so that I could infer, or not infer, design for it, without any false positive. Friends here at UD were ready to offer many examples of functional sequences for which I readily and correctly inferred design. Interlocutors from the other field tried all sorts of tricks, more or less on the line of T, trying to show, I don’t know for what reason, that I could not detect design in all possible cases, or that there were many strings for which I could simply not infer design, without knowing if they were true negatives or false negatives. Which are of course very trivial truths, that I could have agreed upon in advence. Design inference is about inferring with extremely high certainty that some specific object is designed. It is not about recognizing all designed objects. It is not about recognizing all non designed objects. It is a procedure with virtually no false positive (if the threshold of FI is chosen appropriately), and with many, many false negatives. Again, these are really the basics of ID theory.

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/controlling-the-waves-of-dynamic-far-from-equilibrium-states-the-nf-kb-system-of-transcription-regulation/#comment-684355 Why aren’t Hazel, Ed, Seversky and Bob participating in that discussion? While it gets somewhat technical Gpuccio is more than willing to answer our interlocutor’s questions and explain what he is doing. That involves applying CSI to some real world examples. PS: DNA, RNA and protein are linear coded (specified) sequences. CSI most definitely applies to those kind of sequences. john_a_designer

I'm not sure "knapping without due care and attention" has ever been considered a serious enough crime. Bob O'H

Hazel

I am agreeing with you that in fact CSI is not applicable to the stone tool situation, or in fact many (most? all?) everyday situations in which the effort to detect design is made, such as archeology, crime, etc.

You mean that Gil Grissom has been lying to me all these years? :) Ed George

My point, ET, was that JAD was wrong when he said "our regular interlocuters" have said that you can't make a design inference without CSI. I am agreeing with you that in fact CSI is not applicable to the stone tool situation, or in fact many (most? all?) everyday situations in which the effort to detect design is made, such as archeology, crime, etc. hazel

hazel- please buy a vowel. The use of CSI to detect design is very limited as to which scenarios it applies to. And applying it to stone tools demonstrates an ignorance of the concept. ET

JAD writes, "So how could Behe make any kind design inference without CSI? According to our regular interlocutors he couldn’t." I don't think anyone here has said that one can't detect design without CSI. I believe more the opposite is true: that some of us suggest that in fact CSI isn't really a viable method that anyone uses in the everyday detection of design. We ask for examples of it being used in things like stone tools to see if anyone can in fact offer any mathematical analysis in using CSI. As I noted in 26, no one here could offer such an analysis. hazel

"Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” Dr. Behe in DBB CSI is about proving design. And even then it only applied to specific scenarios. ET

So how could Behe make any kind design inference without CSI? According to our regular interlocutors he couldn't. john_a_designer

John A Designer- CSI as a concept didn't come out until Dembski's "No Free Lunch" which was years after Behe's DBB. ET

hnorman42:

It does not require positive evidence to recognize the possibility of a designing intelligence — only to confirm it.

If there isn't any positive evidence then what, exactly, are you basing the possibility of a designing intelligence on? If you are recognizing the possibility then there has to be something that you are recognizing, ie the positive part. ET

Up @ #43 I wrote:

The earliest reference I can find of an ID’ist using Mt Rushmore as an example of inferring design is Michael Behe in his 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box, pp 198, 227. (BTW he doesn’t cite Dembski or use CSI as part of his argument.)

Last night I leafed through DBB and scanned the index another time to see if I could find any reference at all to CSI in the entire book… I couldn’t find one. It appears to me that Behe didn’t need to employ CSI to make a design inference. He argued that the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation cannot explain the irreducible complexity we find in certain features of the living cell. If that’s not an example of “a classic design inference” what is? But maybe I missed something. Did Behe really make his argument without employing CSI? Seversky, Hazel and Bob need to check out their own personal copies of DBB if they want to prove that CSI is the only method of making a design inference. If they are too lazy to do that maybe it’s time to drop the know-it-all pretense and stop wasting everyone’s time. john_a_designer

ET - It does not require positive evidence to recognize the possibility of a designing intelligence -- only to confirm it. Thanks for the reference to Newton's rules. They're giving me quite a bit of food for thought. hnorman42

What other factors, hnorman42? Science does not run on ignorance. Detection of undesign? We do that every day. As I said not all deaths are considered to be murders, and for good reason. Not all rocks are considered to be artifacts and also for good reasons. And not all fires are considered to be arsons. Not all stands of trees are orchards. The list is very, very long. What Newton was saying is there has to be some reason- POSITIVE evidence- to insert a designing intelligence. ET

ET @ 48 In Rule 1, Newton counsels that we should admit causes that are true as well as sufficient. It's just as bad to claim knowledge that there are no other factors involved as that there are. Other factors should be considered undetermined -- not wrong. Your example in the last two paragraphs of your comment is still about the detection of design, not undesign. hnorman42

hnorman42- Sir Isaac Newton provided us with the rules we need to follow:

Rule 1 We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Rule 2 Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. Rule 3 The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. Rule 4 In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

That said, if the stones fit into one's hand- had a gripping/ non-cutting side- at the very least that should be impetus enough to look for more signs in the area and territory. Break out the LIDAR and see if that reveals something hidden to us. The point is with ambiguous finds supporting evidence is always helpful and sometimes necessary. ET

ET at 46 The fire pit might help with inference to design but the lack thereof would not make design wrong -- just undetermined. Sort of like proving a negative. I'll write a little more after work. hnorman42

hnorman42:

If nature is capable of producing something, that only qualifies it as a possibility that it did so.

True

In the case of the tools mentioned in the OP, we can never know that an intelligent agent did not act on them, regardless of how adequate nature may be as an explanation.

There has to be evidence that an intelligent agency did act on them. There needs to be something else- a context may help. Even a fire pit would help. Otherwise all rocks become artifacts, all fires are arsons and all deaths become murders. ET

LoL! @ Bob O'H- Information, yes. Of course Mt. Rushmore required information in order to become what it is today. And as I have said for years- the only way to tease that out is to figure out how to duplicate it. ET

ET @ 39 - I wouldn't describe nirwad, Winston Ewert, and Barry Arrington as "anti-ID". But all 3 are advocating approaches based on information. They may not mention bits, but I would hope any regular reader of UD would know that information is measured in bits. nirwad -

These three reasons together reinforce each other and give the alien the certainty that the top of Mt. Rushmore is an artifact. In a sense we could say that the tetrad of human faces, showing complexity and specifications, contain Complex Specified Information, of analogic/topological type.

Ewert (from the paper) -

Yet, there does appear to be something quite different about Mount Rushmore. There is a special something about carved faces that separates it from the rock it is carved in. This "special something" is information.

Barry Arrington -

DNA is an information code of staggering complexity and elegance. We know that complex specific information of this sort is not normally generated though unguided mindless natural processes. When we see complex information in other contexts (think of Mount Rushmore), we are compelled to assume that the cause of the information was intelligent agency.

Yes, it is interesting that none of them attempt to make a calculation of CSI or FCSI/O or ASC. To be fair, it would be a difficult problem, but surely one that should be addressed at some point if (as these writers all suggest) design can be detected using information theory. Bob O'H

The earliest reference I can find of an ID’ist using Mt Rushmore as an example of inferring design is Michael Behe in his 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box, pp 198, 227. (BTW he doesn’t cite Dembski or use CSI as part of his argument.) However, there is a better example, the so called Yonaguni monument which was discovered by divers off Japan’s westernmost island in the mid 1980’s. It a so-called monument because there is an honest difference of scholarly opinion whether it’s manmade or natural. While at first there is a very compelling intuition after you first see it that it must be artificial (in my case on video) after closer examination you begin to doubt that-- at least I do. Indeed, as an ID’ist I think that it is “probably” natural but that’s just my opinion. Take a look at the following article and video and see what you think. https://ahotcupofjoe.net/2017/10/yonaguni-monumental-ruins-natural-geology/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UbSQOIpkzI john_a_designer

Here is an interesting contrast in design decisions. An archaeologist comes across a ring of ten round stones more or less the same size, containing remnants of charcoal and dirt having a high ash content. He concludes, without doing any calculation, that this is a designed artifact of some human culture. He does not consider, for example, that it might be a random assembly of stones around a tree that was then struck by lightning. No one reading his report or subsequent paper in a science journal questions his assumption of design. Next, biologists find vast amounts of complex and meaningful information, coded into every cell of every living species on Earth. Said biologists cannot uncover any natural mechanism for adding more than a couple of bits of information, and indeed find multiple mechanisms for removing quantities of the same from cells over multiple generations. Yet these biologists mostly insist that the information arose, not by design, but somehow by unspecified natural mechanisms (note to Darwinists, natural selection does not add information). There is clearly something amiss in this contrast. Fasteddious

ET at 37 If nature is capable of producing something, that only qualifies it as a possibility that it did so. In the case of the tools mentioned in the OP, we can never know that an intelligent agent did not act on them, regardless of how adequate nature may be as an explanation. hnorman42

The question raised here about detecting whether or not a particular artifact was designed seems fairly straightforward to me: 1. assess the nature, quantity and context of the artifact(s): - is there only one or many? Detailed description of them. Where found and with what nearby? 2. identify possible, credible mechanisms to account for said artifact: - e.g. random stones banging together (natural) vs. purposeful construction by an intelligent agent (design) 3. for each option, generate a credible sequence of events to account for what is observed: - e.g. how many strikes, and of what nature are required to produce the worked stones 4. then estimate the likelihood of each step in the sequence from natural causes - also collect any contextual info that may support one or other cause; e.g. each contextual clue may support one over the other option) (e.g. human design is unlikely if the artifact is 50 million years old) 5. based on all the above, make a judgement of the best explanation available to account for the artifact, based on the total evidence at hand (this is the abductive method used in several sciences - argument to the most likely explanation) 6. finally, judge how certain the judgement is, based on the evidence for/against each option: - it may be that the judgement is only tentative or impossible to make, lacking further evidence (as noted in the article). This procedure would allow the judge to rule Mt Rushmore definitely designed to a high probability, vs. the artifacts in question to be likely designed, but only with a low probability. It would be impossible to apply any precise number to these probabilities. However, some of the above steps might be partially numerical. Fasteddious

Bob O'H:

For those of you arguing ID methods like FCSI/O can’t detect design because the stones can’t be readily made into bits, can you explain the difference between these stones and Mt. Rushmore: luminaries such as nirwad, Winston Ewert, and Barry Arrington have all argued on the basis of the opposite premise.

And yet not one of those links has Mt. Rushmore's FCSO/I or CSI. No bits are mentioned in reference to Mt. Rushmore. Tools. FCSO/I is NOT the right tool for the job when assessing stones. So it figures that the anti-ID ilk would want to make us use it in that scenario. Losers... ET

Upright BiPed @ 35, Exhibit B indeed. Notice the “strategy” on the part of our regular interlocutors: present a stupid and inane argument… when challenged (or an explanation is provided) ignore it and double down on the very same inane and stupid arguments. However, that strategy does work. It is very disruptive. Once again people on the ID side need to wise up. Trolls are a waste of time. john_a_designer

hnorman42:

The question of design will always be yes or inconclusive.

The question of design will always be yes or no need to infer a designer did it because nature is capable of producing it.

There is no signature of undesign.

Only that nature is capable of producing it. Take pulsars as an example. They have the signature of undesign as the signal bleeds over many channels. It doesn't have any signs of being an artifact. ET

Are all anti-IDists this ignorant and desperate? Do they really think that there is only ONE method to detect the existence of intelligent design and that method is via FSCO/I or CSI? ET

. What would be the point of an explanation Bob? If someone pointed out the difference between an analog representation and a digital string, it would mean nothing to you. If someone explained the distinction between being the interpretant and observing the interpretant, it would not alter your position in any way whatsoever. You are Exhibit B, Bob, and unable to change. Upright BiPed

For those of you arguing ID methods like FCSI/O can't detect design because the stones can't be readily made into bits, can you explain the difference between these stones and Mt. Rushmore: luminaries such as nirwad, Winston Ewert, and Barry Arrington have all argued on the basis of the opposite premise. FWIW, I think hnorman42 has the best explanation, although this is the sort of problem where I think it can still be worth going through the exercise, to see how far you can get (you could try a sequence from these stones up to Mount Rushmore and see at what point design detection methods correctly identify design: this would give you an indication of the sensitivity of the method). Bob O'H

Folks, we are missing a key factor, the pattern-recognising power of the experienced, trained human mind. We know processes by which stone tools are and likely were produced, and there are knowledgeable people who know the characteristic signs of that process. For instance, hammer-stones and soft hammers are used to trigger flaking and conchoidal fracture patterns. It is in that context that certain stones were RECOGNISED as reflecting typical stone tools of a certain level or stage of technology; in short, from the stones in the ground, these stood out as matching a recognised archetype, as opposed to more "natural" stones. That is often more than enough to identify that the items so spotted are artifacts, but in this case they don't fit expected timeline patterns and there are no convenient hominid fossils. That will put them in the fringe category of anomalies or puzzles until/unless the underlying paradigm shifts. And, historically, such shifts come by way of revolutions. KF PS: Note, in a clip from the article:

Robin Dennell, a Paleolithic archaeologist from Sheffield University, says the dating looks sound, though he isn’t convinced that the stones are tools. “The last place that I would want to search for early stone artifacts would be a high-energy … fluvial deposit,” he explains. The stones, he notes, may have simply chipped as they were thrown around in the water over time. To rule out this possibility, Scardia and his colleagues discounted any tools they thought may have chipped naturally, only selecting those that showed repetitive, unidirectional marks that would suggest deliberate hominin shaping. Dennell suggests a way to strengthen the case for the Zarqa pieces would have been to “record every single stone in the excavations where artifacts were claimed and record the size, weight, flake scars, etc., in the same way.” He says, “Overall, I am not convinced.”

BTW, one place arrowhead hunters look at is places in streams where rocks are likely to deposit themselves. That tends to undermine a suggestion that it is dubious to look in that sort of context. kairosfocus

Hnorman42, Thanks, that was a valuable comment. rhampton7

It is important to remember that specified complexity is not about distinguishing design from non-design. It's about ascertaining the detectability of design. The question of design will always be yes or inconclusive. It is only the question of detectability that will be yes or no. There is no signature of undesign. My guess is that the stones don't have enough specification for the function for us to make a design inference. This doesn't mean there's no design there -- only that we can't tell whether there is. Not being an information scientist, I can't tell you whether that means there's no information there, or that there is but it's just highly unspecified. hnorman42

More refined https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8T_BPl6g-Q but look at some of the big flakes kairosfocus

demonstration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrvPOkMs4U4 kairosfocus

Hazel, let's pick up a little context:

One question mark is whether the stones are really tools. It’s hard to tell, especially because there are so few. A classic design inference problem.

In short, News is looking at the issue as to criteria for design detection. Which are in fact varied. In this case, my eyeball mark 1 sees some apparently flaked facets, credibly making them candidates to be deliberately formed. Apparently, there is a want of hominid fossils of the "right" "species" to make this a more comfortably plausible conclusion on their timeline. A very simple comparison is modern knapping of similar objects and comparison with stones of like material believed not worked by intelligent hands. See https://www.thoughtco.com/stone-tools-then-and-now-1441226 and more here https://www.thoughtco.com/the-evolution-of-stone-tools-171699 KF kairosfocus

Exhibit A Upright BiPed

It seems that the consensus here is that this "classic design inference problem" (News's words) is not one that is amenable to being analyzed mathematically so as to be reduced to some number of bits of information that would distinguish design from non-design. I will consider that a definitive answer. hazel

. If a rock contained a linear sequence of symbol tokens -- like a gene. or the text on this page -- Hazel would not be here trying to get a design proponent to explain just exactly how to test the "bits of information" supposedly associated with it. UD has had people like Hazel asking this class of question -- trying to get design proponents to calculate the bits of information in some object that clearly contains no bits of information -- for as long as I have been coming to this site. They repeatedly (and often inadvertently) highlight the clear distinction between the genuine semantic information (such as that encoded in the gene or in language text) and the so-called physical or structural "information" supposedly contained in some odd object. Yet, after demonstrating by their questions that they actually get the distinction, they never turn around to acknowledge "the gene is a sequence of symbols" and are then willing to follow that undeniable fact to its logical and empirical end. Hazel has neither the curiosity nor the integrity to do so - she only wants to tease out any potential contradictions among design proponents. Of course, differences between design proponents are prized observations among ID critics. They are regularly used to sell the patently false conclusion that design in undetectable in biology, and by extension, there is no need to acknowledge the well-documented facts about the symbol system in DNA. Upright BiPed

Archaeologists look for signs of work. Forensic scientists look for signs of intentional agency activity. Neither use FSCO/I or CSI. FCSO/I and CSI pertain to that which is readily available in bits. They are tools and are only applicable in specific scenarios. And they work very well in those scenarios. ET

What is this tried and true method, ET? My understanding, based on many threads at this site, is that design detection involves a numerical value, variously named. Can you outline the tried and true method that doesn't necessitate any numerical calculations, bits, and cut-off values between designed and not designed? {end Charlie Brown} hazel

Earth to hazel- What is wrong with all of the tried-n-true design detection techniques currently used on objects?

is there a mathematical way of determining the functional information in a stone that might be a primitive tool, and reducing some quantity to bits of information that would determine design?

Why would anyone even want to do that? We already have a methodology to tell if an object is designed or not. ET

JAD, can you answer the question: is there a mathematical way of determining the functional information in a stone that might be a primitive tool, and reducing some quantity to bits of information that would determine design? If so, can you outline how that could be done? hazel

Once again we have an example of our regular interlocutors doing what they do best: obfuscating and obstructing, and once again people on the ID side foolishly pander to it and enable it. How long Hazel been on this site? She still doesn’t understand the basics of ID? (It’s obvious that she doesn’t.) Why would someone waste months of her life asking inane and stupid questions or making inane and stupid arguments? (Seversky who has been at least 7 or 8 years… Well, that’s another case of totally off-the-rails irrationality.) To enter into an honest debate one must be able to ask honest questions or present honest arguments. An honest argument begins with premises which are, in some sense, either self-evidently true (as in mathematics,) probably true or at the very least plausibly true. In other words, your argument is a waste of everyone’s time unless there really is something or some things which are really true. That begins with the idea of truth itself. UD should be, first and foremost, for people are genuinely interested in ID. OR, for critics who have honest questions or who can make logically valid arguments. There there should be no place for stupid gotcha questions here. That’s not only annoying it’s a waste of everyone’s time. john_a_designer

KF, News said this was a classic design inference problem. It is about a stone tool, not all that other stuff. Can you address this specific question of how you could reduce the question of design in this case to one that could be mathematically represented in bits of information? hazel

Hazel, As has been repeatedly noted AutoCAD routinely shows how a 3-d entity can be reduced to bits, using a description language; it also yields a readily ascertained file size. Doubtless compressible but that is in this case immaterial. Tie that to issues on how random changes would alter function.Here, I note that Orgel wrote on this 40+ years ago, c 1973 IIRC. I doubt that one would use this on a crude flint-knapped tool, but we already have established recognition of design in any case. Why do you keep ducking the obvious case, the coded algorithms of D/RNA, which show LANGUAGE and algorithms that indisputably create functional, precisely organised entities, proteins, with associated molecular nanotech execution machinery? [I find the contrast to the millions spent on SETI highly revealing.] KF kairosfocus

You could figure out how the artifact was made and put it in a procedure. The minimal instructions it takes to make it. Then do the math using that procedure. That said FSCO/I is NOT the only methodology to detect design. You show me someone using FCSO/I to determine if an object was intelligently designed and I will show you someone who doesn't understand the process of design detection. ET

Ooops. hazel

hazel:

Your idea of “instructions on how to proceed” is a laugh,...

To you, an ignorant pedant, sure. However given Shannon, my way is the ONLY way to proceed if trying to determine the FSCO/I of an object. So it is very telling that you would laugh at it. There exists tried and true design detection techniques that can be and are used on objects. Why aren't those OK? ET

Your idea of "instructions on how to proceed" is a laugh, so I'll retire from discussing this with ET. Maybe someone other than ET will have something to say. hazel

Totally unbelievable. I gave hazel instructions on how to proceed with just an object and apparently that was too much for her. hazel:

the phrase “readily assembled into bits” is poorly phrased,...

That is your opinion. But it just exposes your ignorance on such matters

But you are also saying that the math often cited about such things doesn’t apply to something like stone tools – true?

Which "such things" are you talking about?

Do others agree with ET that the mathematical analysis that involves bits of information, whatever they are called, wouldn’t or couldn’t be applied to this problem of stone tools?

There are other design detection techniques that can be used on objects, hazel. Perhaps you should get out and conduct an investigation for once in your life. ET

I see now what you were meaning, ET: the phrase "readily assembled into bits" is poorly phrased, so I wan't sure what you meant. But you are also saying that the math often cited about such things doesn't apply to something like stone tools - true? Do others agree with ET that the mathematical analysis that involves bits of information, whatever they are called, wouldn't or couldn't be applied to this problem of stone tools? hazel

Unbelievable. Communications can be readily assembled into bits. Computer programs and genes- readily assembled into bits. Read Shannon's work. That would be a start. ET

ET writes, "What part of FSCO/I says that it is applicable to objects not readily made into bits?" What does "not readily made into bits mean?" What kind of things is "readily made into bits" as opposed to one that isn't"? hazel

hazel:

And, as a mathematician, I really don’t see any reasonable way this could be done.

You could figure out how the artifact was made and put it in a procedure. The minimal instructions it takes to make it. Then do the math using that procedure. That said FSCO/I is NOT the only methodology to detect design. ET

rhampton7:

I too would like to see an attempt at calculating the bits of information these possible tools show versus stones that do not show any evidence of being worked by Man.

What part of FSCO/I says that it is applicable to objects not readily made into bits? Why aren't tried and true design detection techniques enough for hypothetical artifacts? ET

Seversky:

Calculate the FSCO/I of these objects in order to prove whether or not they were designed.

Total stupidity. FSCO/I is only used on things that are readily changed into bits. With objects there are other design detection techniques to be used, duh. ET

What I would be interested in seeing is an actual calculation. I can't imagine what reasonable numbers one could attache to the putative tools vs similar stones. For those of you who claim that somehow some quantity for whatever you call it (functional information in the long thread going on right now) can be calculated, could you even sketch a procedure to accomplish this. I highly agree with Sev at #1 on this. And, as a mathematician, I really don't see any reasonable way this could be done. hazel

I too would like to see an attempt at calculating the bits of information these possible tools show versus stones that do not show any evidence of being worked by Man. I doubt it’s anywhere close to 500, but it has to be above 0, right? rhampton7

It's interesting to me that the enterprise of ID does not seem to have really come to grips with the reality of the human evolutionary process (as opposed to special creation). It seems to tiptoe around the issue, beyond repeatedly pointing out the continuing explanatory failures of the various sciences involved – paleontology, anthropology, genetics and so on. Especially highlighting the continuing situation of the existence of many apparent “missing links” in the process leading up to Homo sapiens, despite many new fossil discoveries. This situation emphasizes a major disconnect that seems to exist. This is between the quite certain bankruptcy of new synthesis Neodarwinism when it comes to explaining macroevolution in really "deep time", that is episodes like the origin of animal body plans in the Cambrian Explosion more than 500 million years ago and the origin of the major animal classes, families and orders. And the continuing failure of OOL research in explaining the origin of life itself in the approximate 3.8 billion year region. But it seems to have some apparent successes in clarifying at least some of the microevolutionary processes in the hominins leading directly to Homo Sapiens. This inevitably leads to the mysteries of how the many uniquely human characteristics actually came about, like the true origins of language, art, culture, primitive to advanced spiritual understandings, etc. Were these advances somehow through a version of Darwinistic processes (not tenable), or "cultural evolution" of some sort, or (most likely to me) a combination of cultural evolution and introduction of ideas and traits from outside the system. If modern humans are basically spiritual creatures inhabiting human bodies (as believed by many proponents of religious and spiritual belief systems, and also paranormal advocates), then there must have been some sort of point of transition from animal to human. The transition problem is the mystery of exactly when and how this occurred in the increasingly detailed history of the hominids and hominins that is now being revealed by science. It seems to me this quandary may be leading to some sort of cognitive dissonance between spiritual belief systems and acceptance of some form of human evolution as evidenced by (among other things) the fossil record. doubter

Bornagain77 @ 2 "The study also adds fuel to a larger discussion in the field over the paradigm of Africa being the cradle of all Homo species. " Well, YEAH. If there were humans living in Jordan in 2 million BC, then it really don't matter when homo erectus first appeared in Southern Africa. Some years back I saw articles about similarly confusing "tool" finds in South America, which would have forced MAJOR adjustments to the estimated date for humans arriving in North America from Asia. Several competent experts concluded the "tools" were just NATURALLY chipped rocks. I'm not sure how that all worked out. But the search goes on, and open debate is the best way to arrive at Truth. vmahuna

from the article:

Robin Dennell, a Paleolithic archaeologist from Sheffield University, says the dating looks sound, though he isn’t convinced that the stones are tools. “The last place that I would want to search for early stone artifacts would be a high-energy … fluvial deposit,” he explains. The stones, he notes, may have simply chipped as they were thrown around in the water over time. To rule out this possibility, Scardia and his colleagues discounted any tools they thought may have chipped naturally, only selecting those that showed repetitive, unidirectional marks that would suggest deliberate hominin shaping. Dennell suggests a way to strengthen the case for the Zarqa pieces would have been to “record every single stone in the excavations where artifacts were claimed and record the size, weight, flake scars, etc., in the same way.” He says, “Overall, I am not convinced.”

Also from the article, they admit to having far more questions than answers about exactly where human evolution supposedly occurred:

The study also adds fuel to a larger discussion in the field over the paradigm of Africa being the cradle of all Homo species. Scardia and his colleagues suspect that a pre–H. erectus hominin could have traveled to Asia and there evolved into new species such as H. floresiensis or the equally mysterious Denisovans found in Siberia (and more recently, in Tibet). The team points to the finding of H. habilis–like skulls in the Caucasus Mountains in Georgia, nearly 1.8 million years in age, as evidence for this migration and subsequent evolution. “Africa created H. habilis, and H. habilis then existed in Asia. What did it do there? Produce other species,” Scardia says, supporting the idea that Asia was another pivotal cradle of human evolution.

Perhaps instead of just questioning where human evolution might have happened on the face of the earth, perhaps they should question a little deeper and question their unquestioned presupposition of whether evolution even happened at all?

Since Darwinists have ZERO substantiating evidence for their grandiose claim, (that all life arise via the mindless processes of Darwinian evolution), Darwinists, in grade school textbooks, use misleading evidence, and/or straight out deceptive evidence, to try to indoctrinate children into believing that Darwinian evolution is true. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-cry-from-grievance-culture-she-never-learned-darwinism-in-school/#comment-684155 A few problems with the supposed scientific evidence that humans evolved from a common ancestor that we supposedly shared with chimpanzees about 6 million years ago. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-cry-from-grievance-culture-she-never-learned-darwinism-in-school/#comment-684158

bornagain77

One question mark is whether the stones are really tools. It’s hard to tell, especially because there are so few. A classic design inference problem.

A chance, surely, for ID to prove its worth. Calculate the FSCO/I of these objects in order to prove whether or not they were designed Seversky